|
Post by trbixler on Feb 26, 2012 16:08:11 GMT
So you would not ask for cyber help when trying to bring a cyber crime to conclusion? The fat lady has not yet sung. There will be more to the story. I am sure that Heartland does not have the in house skills to fully resolve this event. The process is not trivial.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 26, 2012 16:29:59 GMT
trbixler, Are you saying it was OK for someone to steal emails in "climategate" but a heinous act of cyber crime for someone to steal the documents in "heartlandgate".
In both cases it is wrong. Stealing emails and or documents is wrong. The link I posted just pointed out the "irony" or hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 26, 2012 16:41:07 GMT
magellan, in "On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011 one of Spencer's claims was that the earth was "losing" heat faster than the models were claiming and the result would most likely be a plateau in warming if not a cooling. I think he has also made "gentlemen's wagers" with other climate scientists that other years would not match the warmth seen in 97' and won. heat faster than the models were claiming and the result would most likely be a plateau in warming if not a cooling.
Nope. I read his blog regularly. His view is we just can't be sure what the future holds because he thinks it is too chaotic to predict cloud behavior for one thing, although he doubts there will be cooling ten years into the future. I think he has also made "gentlemen's wagers" with other climate scientists that other years would not match the warmth seen in 97' and won. Again, I have never read any of his writings making such statements. I read some of Eric Berger's stuff. He appears to think whoever controls the flow of information is the Authority to be believed. He made this statement on Climategate emails: Of the climate change scientists whose e-mails were stolen in the Climategate controversy, Stolen? Really? Berger is just another IPCC toady.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 26, 2012 16:55:40 GMT
trbixler, Are you saying it was OK for someone to steal emails in "climategate" but a heinous act of cyber crime for someone to steal the documents in "heartlandgate". In both cases it is wrong. Stealing emails and or documents is wrong. The link I posted just pointed out the "irony" or hypocrisy. You don't know if the Climategate emails were stolen. What we do know is the sycophants of the IPCC did break the law by refusing to release FOIA documents that legally belong to the public. They would not be released to this day had it not been for FOIA (the person(s)) Are you familiar with Santer 08 and Steve McIntyre's attempts and expense to get his paper published? It took threat of a lawsuit to get the documents released even after a FOIA binding request. Michael Mann? Really glennkoks, you should spend more time at CA to see what is really going on behind the scenes. IPCC is already planning AR5 so that the public cannot scrutinize what their hand picked "science" will be in the next report. IPCC are a bunch of crooks.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 26, 2012 16:57:30 GMT
trbixler, Are you saying it was OK for someone to steal emails in "climategate" but a heinous act of cyber crime for someone to steal the documents in "heartlandgate". In both cases it is wrong. Stealing emails and or documents is wrong. The link I posted just pointed out the "irony" or hypocrisy. We still do not know how the "climategate" emails appeared. Further it is not clear which if any should not have been in the public domain as they were all subject to FOIA. The Heartland Emails were not in the public domain and as such not subject to FOIA.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 26, 2012 17:53:11 GMT
Guys, I am not a lawyer. Unauthorized or stolen they were released without permission.
It was wrong for whom ever did it in climategate and it was wrong for Gleick.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 26, 2012 17:59:36 GMT
"Really glennkoks, you should spend more time at CA to see what is really going on behind the scenes. IPCC is already planning AR5 so that the public cannot scrutinize what their hand picked "science" will be in the next report."
I don't spent much time at CA for the same reason I don't at WUWT. My "filter" meter can only take so much.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 26, 2012 18:15:23 GMT
"Really glennkoks, you should spend more time at CA to see what is really going on behind the scenes. IPCC is already planning AR5 so that the public cannot scrutinize what their hand picked "science" will be in the next report." I don't spent much time at CA for the same reason I don't at WUWT. My "filter" meter can only take so much. Sounds like you're not as open minded as you claim. Give an example at CA where it doesn't meet your strict standard of "fairness" or whatever it is you demand of a blog. This is what you must defend as "mainstream". If it weren't for CA, the public would likely not know about these underhanded slimy fraudsters at the IPCC and the junk they pass off as "science", not to mention the corrupt "peer review" process which is mostly controlled by a small group of individuals intent on keeping out any research that shines the light of truth on their garbage. climateaudit.org/2011/12/13/watch-the-pea-ar5-chapter-10/As CA readers are aware, key findings of Santer et al 2008 do not hold using updated data. Ross and I submitted a comment to IJC showing this. The comment was rejected twice, with one of the reviewers (as in the case of the comment on Steig et al) being a Santer coauthor (who was not identified to us as such). Ross eventually managed to get similar results published in another journal.
Jean S points out in a comment on the Steig thread that our findings were completely misrepresented by IPCC AR5 (ZOD) chapter 10 (also the source of disinformation about Steig).
Our article stated that there was a statistically significant difference between models and observations in the tropical troposphere. Instead of citing our articles as rebutting Santer’s assertions, IPCC cites us as endorsing Santer’s false assertions: Is that what you can't stomach? Truth? I'm anxiously awaiting a cogent response.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 26, 2012 23:07:31 GMT
magellan, I don't have a strict standard of "fairness" those are your words not mine. I occasionally visit both WUWT and CA, usually following a link. However, in my honest opinion both of those websites are like watching FOX or MSNBC. Not without merit but clearly slanted. I occasionally visit Real Climate as well but once again the slant.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 26, 2012 23:26:42 GMT
Magellan, in addition to my occasional visits to WUWT, RealClimate, and CA, I spend time on both the Pielke's blogs (Sr, and Jr.), SciGuy, Climateabyss, NSIDA, MET, Dr. Roy Spencers, NSIDC, Cryospheretoday, Beyond landsheidt, NOAA and probably a dozen others.
Some skeptical, some alarmist and some inbetween.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 26, 2012 23:33:55 GMT
Glenn: To me the difference in the e-mail/data thing is that on one hand public monies were being used. Also, within the e-mails, there were hints of fraud with said public monies, and most of the e-mails were subject to FOI requests if they had been filed.
Heartland, is a private funded org, however, being it is a 501C as I understand it, non-profitable, there is somewhat of a conflict in how the laws read as to FOI requests.
By the nature of the release, which as far as useful information is a non-event, the actions of Gliek show that no attempt had been made using FOI laws and he knowingly sent potential private information to a blog. The information of itself revealed nothing surpriseing, which is one of the reasons I wonder.....why did he do this?
Was he so blinded by his AGW zeal that he has lost all cognitive ability? His actions would seem to confirm that. That brings to question, are the zealot scientists also loosing their cognitive ability? Recent papers, etc, would also suggest this. The mainstream papers are really getting lousy. Most rely on models, rather than attributing observed measurements to validity. The only paper as of late that shows cognitive ability is the one I posed a week or so ago that shows the earth radiation budget much closer to equalibrium than the models show. And that one is being attacked.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 27, 2012 1:19:06 GMT
This Link is from Anthony Watts, interesting. UPDATE61: 2/26 Mr. Worthing on “Funding Imbalance” says: Note that the latest grant of $100 million was made on the day after the hippies got all hot under the collar about Heartland’s ‘huge’ annual budget of $4.4 million. "The Climate Works Foundation, though, is of special interest as it was in 2008, awarded $460,800,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a grant-making organisation with assets of $7.2 billion, which disbursed $353,400,000 in grants in 2011. It has made another grant to Climate Works only last week of $100 million – bringing the total grants to this organisation to just short of $600 million." mrworthing.blogspot.com/2012/02/funding-imbalance.html
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 27, 2012 1:30:07 GMT
sigurdur, I don't know what Gleick was thinking. It's inexcusable. He thievery has had the exact opposite effect he was trying to create. For some it has become a "cause" instead of a science.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 27, 2012 1:32:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 27, 2012 1:35:44 GMT
This Link is from Anthony Watts, interesting. UPDATE61: 2/26 Mr. Worthing on “Funding Imbalance” says: Note that the latest grant of $100 million was made on the day after the hippies got all hot under the collar about Heartland’s ‘huge’ annual budget of $4.4 million. "The Climate Works Foundation, though, is of special interest as it was in 2008, awarded $460,800,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a grant-making organisation with assets of $7.2 billion, which disbursed $353,400,000 in grants in 2011. It has made another grant to Climate Works only last week of $100 million – bringing the total grants to this organisation to just short of $600 million." mrworthing.blogspot.com/2012/02/funding-imbalance.htmltrbixler: All I can say is.......Wow!!!! And someone gets worried about Heartland? ??
|
|